The Impact of Entrepreneurship Education on Entrepreneurial Attitudes and Intention: Hysteresis and Persistence

Abstract

Do entrepreneurship education programs (EEPs) really influence participants’ attitudes and intention toward entrepreneurship? How is this influence related to past experience and how does it persist? Researchers and entrepreneurship education stakeholders alike have been looking into this question for quite a while, with a view to validating the efficacy of such programs. The authors of this paper propose to operationalize the concept of entrepreneurial intention and its antecedents in an attempt to address those issues. In particular, we propose an original research design where (1) we measure the initial state and persistence of the impact and not only short‐term effects; (2) we deal with a compulsory program, allowing to avoid self‐selection biases; and (3) we deal with an homogeneous “compact” program rather than programs combining multiple teaching components whose effects cannot be disentangled. Our main research results show that the positive effects of an are all the more marked when previous entrepreneurial exposure has been weak or inexistent. Conversely, for those students who had previously significantly been exposed to entrepreneurship, the results highlight significant countereffects of the on those participants.

Notes

8. Our study focuses more particularly on individuals’ variations in attitude, perception, and intention toward entrepreneurial behavior (here defined as the access to self‐employment: creation or takeover of a business).

9. “Entrepreneurial intention” may be defined as a state of mind that directs the attention and actions of an individual toward situations of self‐employment, as opposed to employed situations (definition inspired by Bird 1988).

10. See for instance Emin (2003, 2004), who studied the entrepreneurial intention of French researchers.

11. In Ajzen's model, intention is the result of three conceptual determinants: (1) attitude toward the behavior: the degree to which the behavior is positively or negatively perceived (Ajzen 1991). Whenever questions arise regarding the evaluation of the behavior, individuals tap into their memory to call upon the appropriate beliefs. As each belief implies a specific evaluation, attitudes are automatically formed. (2) Perceived subjective norms: perceived social pressure to perform—or not—a given behavior (Ajzen 1991); in other words, the perception by the individual of the opinion of other people (important for the individual) on the behavior. This type of pressure may have a more or less significant impact on the formation of intention, depending on the context considered. (3) Perceived behavioral control: perceived ease or difficulty in performing the behavior (Ajzen 1991). This concept was introduced in the theory of planned behavior to take into account all the involuntary elements inherent (potentially at least) in all behaviors (Ajzen 2002). As an example, Krueger and Dickson (1994) show us that an increase in perceived behavioral control increases the perception and identification of venture creation opportunities.

12. The first two questionnaires were administered in October 2005 and the third in April 2006. The average time required to complete the questionnaire was 20 minutes.

13. This notion was developed by Bandura (1986).

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Alain Fayolle

Alain Fayolle is Professor at the Strategy & Organisation Department and Director of the Entrepreneurship Research Centre at EM Lyon Business School, France. His is also Associate Editor of the Journal of Small Business Management. He won the 2013 European Entrepreneurship Education Award.

Benoit Gailly

Benoit Gailly is Professor at the Strategy and Innovation Department at Louvain School of Management, Belgium.